2 ms·
Perhaps consider putting it in public domain instead of using an "open source" license? There's a decent legal ethical argument that LLM output isn't copyright
by bigiain 3mo ago
Perhaps consider putting it in public domain instead of using an "open source" license?
There's a decent legal ethical argument that LLM output isn't copyrightable, and for me a "one shot vibe code" definitely _isn't_ "your creative work", so the copyright that open source licenses rely on probably doesn't exist there.
I wonder if a new category of "non copyrighted shared source code" needs to exist for people who use Gan AUI to create genuinely useful software which would ne a net positive to society if shared, but that doesn't risk murkying the waters and undermining the copyright basis that licenses like GPL and Apache and BSD and MIT rely on?
- farnsworthfusor 3mo agoIf LLM output isn't copyrightable then it's already public domain, even if you say it isn't - if this is true you can just ignore the wishes of the person who thinks they're the copyright holder.
- marcus_holmes 3mo agothis. The whole licensing of software stands on copyright. If the content is already in the public domain because it was generated by an LLM (copyright only protects human works) then it can't be licensed. However, there's no compunction to publish the generated code, even if it's public domain. We end up in a strange nega-OSS world where all code can be used by anyone for any reason, if you can get your hands on it.
- PeterStuer 3mo agoIf you believe this, then this was always the case. LLM's only made it cheaper and more accesible.
- marcus_holmes 3mo agoSorry I don't understand, what am I believing that has always been the case?
- PeterStuer 3mo agoThat you could reimplement a software and then be license free. Or did I read you wrong?
- marcus_holmes 3mo agoThat's a separate thing. I mean, valid, and a good point to raise, but I wasn't raising it. I was more talking about the weird space we're getting into where code is completely open, because it was generated and cannot have any copyright protection, but also unpublished, and so effectively proprietary. The opposite of OSS, where code is available but protected by copyright-based licenses.
- farnsworthfusor 3mo agoThat's true. You can write software that duplicates the functionality of existing software and by doing that you can evade the copyright of that software.
- Retr0id 3mo agoI don't believe in copyright, personally.
- bigiain 3mo agoWhether you believe that copyright _should_ exist is quite different from whether it _actually_ exists and whether there are consequences due to the existence of copyright. All "open source" licenses rely on copyright. If copyright did not exist, GPL and BSD and MIT (and all the other software license options, open and commercial) would be unenforceable. (I'm less convinced that you seem to be about whether there arte any good reasons for copyright. I believe real "creative people" like authors and musicians and artists and film makers _should_ have a legally enforceable monopoly to control use of and to generate income from their creative work. That shouldn't be "Micky Mouse" effectively eternal control, but there should in my opinion be some legally protected "ownership" that a creator has where they can prevent other people copying/recreating/misusing/profiting from their creation. Whether this should ever have applied to softwares something for a more nuances discussion t6hat a website comment section...)